Principles of Management - Ohio University

Principles of Management[AUTHORS REMOVED AT REQUEST OF ORIGINAL
PUBLISHER]
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LIBRARIES PUBLISHING EDITION, 2015. THIS EDITION ADAPTED FROM A WORK ORIGINALLY PRODUCED IN 2010 BY A PUBLISHER WHO HAS REQUESTED THAT IT NOT RECEIVE
ATTRIBUTION. MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Chapter 8: Organizational Culture
8.1 Organizational Culture 337 8.2 Case in Point: Google Creates Unique Culture 339 8.3 Understanding Organizational Culture 342 8.4 Measuring Organizational Culture 346 8.5 Creating and Maintaining Organizational Culture 356 8.6 Creating Culture Change 370 8.7 Developing Your Personal Skills: Learning to Fit In 375
Chapter 9: Social Networks
9.1 Social Networks 379 9.2 Case in Point: Networking Powers Relationships 381 9.3 An Introduction to the Lexicon of Social Networks 383 9.4 How Managers Can Use Social Networks to Create Value 389 9.5 Ethical Considerations With Social Network Analysis 400 9.6 Personal, Operational, and Strategic Networks 408 9.7 Mapping and Your Own Social Network 414
Chapter 10: Leading People and Organizations
10.1 Leading People and Organizations 421 10.2 Case in Point: Indra Nooyi Draws on Vision and Values to Lead 424 10.3 Who Is a Leader? Trait Approaches to Leadership 427 10.4 What Do Leaders Do? Behavioral Approaches to Leadership 434 10.5 What Is the Role of the Context? Contingency Approaches to Leadership 439 10.6 Contemporary Approaches to Leadership 447 10.7 Developing Your Leadership Skills 461
Chapter 11: Decision Making
11.1 Decision Making 467 11.2 Case in Point: Bernard Ebbers Creates Biased Decision Making at WorldCom 469 11.3 Understanding Decision Making 472 11.4 Faulty Decision Making 485 11.5 Decision Making in Groups 490 11.6 Developing Your Personal Decision-Making Skills 498
Chapter 9: Social Networks
9.3 An Introduction to the Lexicon of Social Networks
9.4 How Managers Can Use Social Networks to Create Value
9.5 Ethical Considerations With Social Network Analysis
9.6 Personal, Operational, and Strategic Networks
9.7 Mapping and Your Own Social Network
378
Social networks are the patterned structure of relationships among people.
Chris Potter – 3D Social Networking – CC BY 2.0.
What’s in It for Me?
Reading this chapter will help you do the following:
1. Understand the social network vocabulary.
2. Know why social networks and networking are valuable.
3. Know some of the ethical considerations related to social network analysis.
4. Understand the difference between personal, operational, and strategic social networks.
5. Map your own social network and understand its implications.
Most management textbooks do not cover the subject of social networks. This is an unfortunate oversight. Social
networks can be considered “the invisible organization”—they are the pathways through which communication
and resources flow and how work actually gets done. We include this chapter on social networks in the organizing
section of the book because, like organizational design, the management of social networks is important in the
planning-organizing-leading-controlling (P-O-L-C) framework. An organization chart might communicate who
reports to whom, but it is ultimately the internal (within organization) and external (ties between members of
the organization and people outside the organization such as suppliers or customers) social networks that really
explain productivity (or impediments to productivity).
Figure 9.2 The P-O-L-C Framework
You are probably already active in social networks through such Web communities as MySpace, Facebook,
and LinkedIn. However, these sites are really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the role of social
networks in management. Networks provide managers with three unique advantages: (1) access to information
and knowledge, (2) access to diverse skill sets, and (3) power. While managers see these advantages at work every
day, they might not pause to consider how their networks regulate them. In this chapter, you will learn about
the role and importance of social networks, and social network analysis, in the organizing facet of the P-O-L-C
framework. You will also have an opportunity to map and evaluate your own social network, and answer questions
about its effectiveness for you personally and professionally.
380 • PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT
Figure 9.3
Marjan Lazarevski – Talking on the Phone – CC BY-ND 2.0.
Networking has the potential to open doors and create possibilities for jobs and partnerships. Networking establishes connections between individuals and access to information that one might not normally have access to. Reaching out to strangers can be an intimidating and nerve-racking experience. In business, the more central you are, the more power you have. Creating connections and ties to other people affords you the opportunity for power and the ability to more closely control your future, so while at times networking might feel awkward and uncomfortable, it is a necessary and important part of establishing and maintaining a career.
Online social networking sites play an important role in this networking process for individuals both professionally and personally. With 1,200 employees in 2010, Facebook has 350 million users around the world, and LinkedIn has over 60 million members in over 200 countries. A new member joins LinkedIn every second, and about half of the members are outside the United States. These online sites have created new opportunities for networking and allow individuals to branch out beyond their normal world of industry, school, and business. The key is to avoid costly missteps as employers have begun to search
online for information about prospective and current employees. In 2009, 8% of companies reported that they had fired an employee for misuse of social media.
Many of these online sites have become a tool for business. For example, LinkedIn targets working professionals and provides them a way to maintain lists of business connections and to use those connections to gain introduction to people using mutual contacts. Unlike other social networking sites, LinkedIn is almost entirely used by professionals. The power of social networking flows in both directions. Employers can screen applicants through their online accounts and recruiters more than ever are using these sites to view background information, individual skill sets, and employment history, which can be cross-referenced with submitted applications. Job seekers can review the profiles of those at top management firms and search for mutual contacts. LinkedIn also provides statistics about firms, which can be useful information for individuals looking at potential employers.
Networking is about building your brand and managing relationships. Using social networks as a vehicle to market one’s self and make professional connections is becoming increasingly common, as well as using loose ties or connections through others to open doors and land jobs. In an increasingly high-tech and digital world, it is important to be aware and conscience of the digital footprint that we create. But with careful cultivation these online networks can present many opportunities.
Case written by based on information from Hof, R. (2008, October 28). Facebook in a suit: LinkedIn launches applications platform. BusinessWeek. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/linkedin_launch.html; Horswill, A. (2009). How to get a job online using social networking. The Courier Mail. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from LexisNexis Academic database; Lavenda, D. (2010, March 10). 10 tips for safe and effective social networking. Fast Company. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://www.fastcompany.com/1577857/ 10-tips-for-safe-and-effective-social-networking; How to use social networking sites for marketing and PR. (2008, December 24). AllBusiness. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.allbusiness.com/ marketing-advertising/public-relations/11674037-1.html; Ostrow, A. (2009, August). Facebook fired: 8% of US companies have sacked social media miscreants. Mashable. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://mashable.com/2009/08/10/social-media-misuse.
Discussion Questions
1. If social networks are an essential element of the organizing facet of the P-O-L-C framework, should employers track the use of LinkedIn or Facebook among their employees? Why or why not?
2. How is online networking different from or similar to in-person networking? Please describe your experience with both.
3. What are the downfalls and benefits of social networking?
4. In what ways are indirect ties as powerful and important as direct ties?
5. To what extent have you built your own brand? Is this something that you have ever considered before?
Learning Objectives
3. Identify various types of social networks.
This section draws on extensive social network research to help you understand the managerial implications
of that body of knowledge. Social networks often complement or compete with such aspects of organizations
as formal organization structure (think “org chart”), work processes (think “job description”), human resource
practices, leadership style, and organization culture. This is particularly problematic in knowledge-intensive
settings where management is counting on collaboration among employees with different types of expertise.
People rely heavily on their networks of relationships to find information and solve problems—one of the most
consistent findings in the social science literature is that who you know often has a great deal to do with what you
come to know (Kilduff & Tsai, 2004). Yet both practical experience and scholarly research indicate significant
difficulty in getting people with different expertise, backgrounds, and problem-solving styles to integrate their
unique perspectives effectively.1 From a manager’s standpoint, simply moving boxes on an organizational chart
is not sufficient to ensure effective collaboration among workers.
What Is a Social Network?What Is a Social Network?
If you were asked for a definition of a social network, your intuition would probably provide you with a pretty
close answer. A social network can be characterized as a patterned set of relationships between two or more
people—or, as they are called in the social science literature, actors. It can be depicted in a sociogram, as
shown in the following figure. The term “actors” is broader, as it includes all possible types of information/
knowledge processing entities: the individuals, groups, organizations, or supraorganizations that constitute the
network (Granovetter, 1985; Granovetter, 1995). For instance, all of the people named in the figure are actors, but
you could also consider each work group or department as an actor if you were concerned with the interaction
among these groups rather than with the interaction within the groups or among individuals. The characteristics
of a social network also are the determinants of social capital, that is, the resources—such as ideas, information,
383
money, trust—available in and through personal and business networks. You can have social capital, as can
organizations. However, since social capital is based on relationships, no single person can claim ownership of it,
but it is important and manageable.
Figure 9.4 Sociogram: A Simple Social Network
Social Network Analysis and the Quality of Work InteractionsSocial Network Analysis and the Quality of Work Interactions
The mapping and measuring of relationships and flows among people, groups, organizations, computers, Web
sites, and other actors is called social network analysis (SNA), which we will discuss in greater detail later in the
chapter. Each connection, or relationship, between actors is known as a network tie, while each actor, or point
on the network, is referred to as a node. In the previous figure, Thomas is a node and his connections to Albert,
Eric, Martha, and others are network ties. Direct ties are those in which a single link spans two actors; indirect
ties are where connections exist between actors, but only through other actors (hence, indirect ties). You can see
that Thomas has four direct ties and is indirectly tied to everyone in the network. Conceptually, you probably have
indirect ties to everyone on the planet but that does not necessarily mean they come to mind as part of your social
network.
Figure 9.5 Example of a Social Network Based on Information Ties
Actor Kevin Bacon founded sixdegrees.org to help charities network and share resources.
Joan Garvin – Kevinbacongfdl – CC BY-SA 2.5.
Network size would be the number of actors. Though you might be interested in the count of all network
members, you also might want to know how many people are one, two, or three links away. Long before computer
9.3 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LEXICON OF SOCIAL NETWORKS • 385
networking was invented, psychologists Jeffrey Travers and Stanley Milgram conducted a low-tech experiment
that looked directly at this question (Travers & Milgram, 1969). They asked how many links might be necessary
to get an envelope from one randomly chosen person to another randomly chosen person in the United States.
They found that, on average, there were six links—or “degrees of separation”—between any two people randomly
drawn from the U.S. population (at the time) of 250 million. Flipping the numbers around, Travers and Milgram
then estimated that each individual had a potential network of 3,000 to 10,000 people. You may be familiar with
this larger body of work in terms of “how many degrees of separation are you from Kevin Bacon?” or the notion
of the “six degrees of separation.”
Social Network CharacteristicsSocial Network Characteristics
The extent to which a given actor is in the middle of the network is referred to as centrality (i.e., network
centrality), though the definition of “middle” can vary from who has the most ties, to who is the unique connection
between two other groups. Centrality is good because it puts the actor in a position to gather information, and to
serve as broker between the parties that are connected via that actor.
Another basic network indicator is density, which essentially reflects how many people in a network are connected
(usually directly) to each other. You can imagine that there are a number of possible network configurations based
simply on permutations of network size, centrality, and density. For instance, you can have a large or tiny network,
be central or peripheral in the network, and have a dense or sprawling network. Each of these structures has
implications for how the network might serve its various actors.
The tie between actors can be directional or bidirectional (i.e., reciprocal flows between actors); similarly, a
network can be described as social, personal, professional, informational, and so on, depending on what is of most
interest.
A Sampling of Social Network TypesA Sampling of Social Network Types
As a manager, you might be interested in your employees’ (1) communication network, (2) information network,
(3) problem-solving network, (4) knowledge network, or (5) access network (Cross, et. al., 2002). A
communication network is the informal structure of an organization as represented in ongoing patterns of
interaction, either in general or with respect to a given issue. For instance, people on the same office floor may
periodically congregate in the break room or by the soda machine and engage in informal communication. For this
reason, some descriptions of social networks focus on the informal network. That is, the pattern of interactions
among employees that aren’t a direct consequence of the organization chart, job descriptions, and so on.
An information network shows who goes to whom for advice on work-related matters. For example, if you have a
question about filling out a form, or answering a customer’s question, who do you regularly seek out for answers?
A problem-solving network indicates who goes to whom to engage in dialogue that helps people solve problems
at work. For instance, “whenever this machine breaks down I know I can turn to Pat for help.” A knowledge
network captures who is aware of whose knowledge and skills, and an access network shows who has access to
whose knowledge and expertise.
The example with Pat is also a knowledge network because it appears that you understand that Pat has the needed
knowledge, and there is no barrier impeding your access to Pat. However, if the organization had rules telling
you that you needed to talk to Pat’s boss before getting assistance from Pat, then the knowledge network and
access network would look different. You can imagine that each of these types of networks might reveal a different
structure, depending on the question—for example, the linkages would be different across iterations of the figure.
You can see that information is flowing back and forth between different actors in the network. However, it
does not appear that information is flowing directly between all network members—for instance, the sales and
marketing, finance, and operations staff do not communicate directly with each other. However, if you were to
combine the staff from those functions in the same office space, you would likely create a new communication
network, which in turn could change the information ties of all the members.
More recent work in social network research has also considered the way that individuals interact, as well as their
potential impact on network relationships (Bavelas, 1950; Leavitt, 1951; Shaw, 1964). Five key dimensions of
work quality can also be taken into account with social networks: (1) activity, (2) control, (3) access, (4) influence,
and (5) power. Activity gauges how active a person is in the network. For example, an individual may be in the
network, but actually do little to affect what is going on. Control gauges how much control a person has over
the flow of information. Centrality is obviously one indicator of control, but there may be other determinants of
control such as intelligence, personality, or even a particular skill set. In highly technical fields, for example, one
individual (a node) can make a big difference on information flow, even if he or she is situated in a fairly open
and balanced network. Access tells you how easily a person in the network can get the resources that he or she
needs to be successful in the organization. How many steps, for instance, are they away from those individuals
or units that are most instrumental for their success? Influence and power are different but related characteristics.
Influence shows how much potential influence a person wields in the network, while power tells you how able
they are to get things done. You may be interested in other dimensions of work quality, so feel free to experiment
with them in SNA.
Key Takeaway
Social networks are the invisible structure in organizations—they capture the actual pathways of how information flows and how work is done. Network size, centrality, and density were identified as key features of social networks, and you have a general understanding of at least five types of social networks: communication, information, problem solving, knowledge, and access.
Exercises
9.3 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LEXICON OF SOCIAL NETWORKS • 387
6. What are some key types of social networks?
1It is one problem to learn or act on knowledge with others who think like you (such as in a community
of practice); however, it is an entirely different problem to do this in diverse social contexts, such as cross-
functional teams, where people often do not share a common vision, language, metrics of performance, or even
understanding of the problem. For example, sociologists have demonstrated how correct information can have
little or no effect on critical decision processes. Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky
technology, culture and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Further, organizational theorists
have shown that a person’s knowledge can be role constrained. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1975). The uncertainty of
the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147–171.
ReferencesReferences
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of Acoustical Society of America,
22, 725–730.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible California Management Review, 44(2),
25–46.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal
of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2004). Social networks and organizations. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.
Leavitt, H. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50.
Shaw, M. (1964). Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York: Academic Press.
Travers, J., & Milgram, S. (1969). An experimental study in the small world problem. Sociometry, 32(4), 425–443.
9.4 How Managers Can Use Social Networks to Create Value
Learning Objectives
2. See how social networks create value in career management.
3. See how social networks create value in and across organizations.
You probably have an intuitive sense of how and why social networks are valuable for you, personally and
professionally. The successful 2008 U.S. presidential campaign of Barack Obama provides a dramatic example of
how individuals can benefit when they understand and apply the principles and power of social networking (Cox,
2008). In this section, we discuss three fundamental principles of social network theory, then help you see how
social networks create value in your career and within and across organizations.
389
The principles of reciprocity, exchange, and similarity underlie the way managers create value through
social networks.
Reciprocity, Exchange, and SimilarityReciprocity, Exchange, and Similarity
Across all social networks, performance depends on the degree to which three fundamental principles are
accounted for (Kilduff & Tsai, 2004). The first is the principle of reciprocity, which simply refers to the degree
to which you trade favors with others. With the principle of reciprocity, managers have the ability to get things
done by providing services to others in exchange for the services they require. For instance, you are more likely
to get assistance with a problem from a colleague at work when you have helped him or her out in the past.
Although the quid pro quo may not be immediate, over time managers will receive only in proportion to what they
give. Unless the exchanges are roughly equivalent over time, hard feelings or distrust will result. In organizations,
few transactions are one-shot deals. Most are ongoing trades of “favors.” Therefore, two outcomes are important:
success in achieving the objective and success in improving the relationship such that the next exchange will be
more productive.
The second principle is the principle of exchange. Like the reciprocity principle, it refers to “trading favors,” but
it is different in this way: the principle of exchange proposes that there may be greater opportunity for trading
favors when the actors are different from one another. In fact, according to network theory, “difference” is what
makes network ties useful in that such difference increases the likelihood that each party brings a complementary
resource to the table. Going back to our example where you sought out assistance from a colleague, you probably
needed that assistance because that person brought a different skill set, knowledge, or other resources to bear on
the problem. That is, since you were different, the value of exchange was greater.
The third principle is the principle of similarity. Psychologists studying human behavior have observed that
relationships, and therefore network ties, tend to develop spontaneously between people with common
backgrounds, values, and interests. Similarity, to the extent that your network is composed only of like-minded
folks, also makes it more likely that an individual may be dependent on a handful of people with common
interests.
Why is it important to understand these three principles? As a manager, you will find your network useful to the
extent that you can balance the effects of the three principles. Because of similarity, it is easier to build networks
with those with whom you have various things in common, though this similarity makes the network less useful if
you need new ideas or other resources not in the current group. A critical mistake is to become overly dependent
on one person or on only a few network relationships. Not only can those relationships sour but also the manager’s
usefulness to others depends critically on his or her other connections. Those people most likely to be attractive
potential protégés, for example, will also be likely to have alternative contacts and sponsors available to them.
Similarity also means that you have to work harder to build strong exchange networks, since their formation is
not spontaneous. Most personal networks are highly clustered—that is, your friends are likely to be friends with
one another as well. And, if you made those friends by introducing yourself to them, the chances are high that
their experiences and perspectives echo your own. Because ideas generated within this type of network circulate
among the same people with shared views, a potential winner can wither away and die if no one in the group
has what it takes to bring that idea to fruition. But what if someone within that cluster knows someone else who
belongs to a whole different group? That connection, formed by an information broker, can expose your idea to a
new world, filled with fresh opportunities for success. Diversity makes the difference.
Finally, for reciprocity to work, you have to be willing and able to trade or reciprocate favors, and this means
that you might need access to other people or resources outside the current network. For example, you may have
to build relationships with other individuals such that you can use them to help you contribute to your existing
network ties.
We owe our knowledge about the relationship between social network characteristics and finding a job to Stanford
sociologist Mark Granovetter. In a groundbreaking study, Granovetter found that job seekers are more likely to
find a job through weak ties than through strong ties (Granovetter, 1974). He demonstrated that while job hunters
use social connections to find work, they don’t use close friends. Rather, survey respondents said they found jobs
through acquaintances: old college friends, former colleagues, people they saw only occasionally or just happened
to run into at the right moment. New information, about jobs or anything else, rarely comes from your close
friends, because they tend to know the same things and people you do. Strong ties, as you might expect, exist
among individuals who know one another well and engage in relatively frequent, ongoing resource exchanges.
Weak ties, in contrast, exist among individuals who know one another, at least by reputation, but who do not
engage in a regular exchange of resources. In fact, Granovetter showed that those who relied on weak ties to get
a job fared better in the market in terms of higher pay, higher occupational status, greater job satisfaction, and
longer job tenure. While much in the world has changed since Granovetter’s 1974 research, subsequent studies
continue to affirm his basic findings on the consequences of social network structure (Goleman, 2006). As you
might expect, for weak ties to be effective though, there must be some basis for affinity between the indirectly
connected individuals, but this affinity can simply be having the same birth month or high school or college alma
mater.
9.4 HOW MANAGERS CAN USE SOCIAL NETWORKS TO CREATE VALUE • 391
Figure 9.8 The Value of Weak Ties
The value of weak ties is highly counterintuitive; we tend to think of relationships being more valuable when we
have strong ties to others. However, if you think about it, the value of a weak tie lies in the fact that it is typically
a bridging tie, that is, a tie that provides nonredundant information and resources. In the case of a job search, the
weak tie serves as a strong bridge. “Social Networking as a Career-Building Strategy” suggests some personal
strategies you might consider with your own social networks.
Social Networking as a Career-Building StrategySocial Networking as a Career-Building Strategy
Penelope Trunk, author of “The Brazen Careerist” column and blog (blog.penelopetrunk.com), views job hunting not as an event but as a lifestyle. She advises that in today’s business environment, people change jobs so often that they need to keep their eye on the market even if they just started a new job. In her view, “the people who control their destiny most effectively leave their job when they find a better one, not when they are tossed out because of layoffs or reorganizations.” This also means that social networking should be a central element in any job-search strategy. And because many jobs are filled by knowing someone who knows about an open position, Trunk argues that it’s more important to network than it is to read the want ads. Trunk evokes the principle of reciprocity when she says, “building a network is adding value to lots of peoples’ lives so that they, in turn, will want to add value to yours.” Another useful strategy is to network proactively rather than reacting to concerns about your present job or news of a possible opening. By being proactive, you will increase your chances of being in the right place at the right time.
Career networking opportunities are plentiful; regardless of where you live, you can use the Internet to read blogs, subscribe to e-mail newsletters, and make friends on social networking sites. When you consider the principle of exchange, you realize that your networking possibilities are not limited to people in your chosen field—you can actually gain more by networking with those in related fields, or even in jobs far removed from yours. With the exchange principle in mind, even residents of sparsely populated rural areas can network with their neighbors a few miles down the road.
Adapted from Trunk, P. (2008, March 1). Take control of your career destiny. Wisconsin State Journal, B1.
LinkedIn (http://www.LinkedIn.com) is the largest online network of experienced professionals from around the world, representing 150 industries. Other business networking sites include Plaxo.com, Ryze.com, and Xing.com (primarily Europe and China). Here are eight effective networking job-hunting tactics to employ with LinkedIn (or with any networking site):
• Create a Profile. Create a detailed profile on LinkedIn, including employment (current and past), education, industry, and Web sites.
• Consider a Photo. You can add a photo (a headshot is recommended or upload a larger photo and edit it) to your LinkedIn profile. Note that it must be a small photo—no larger than 80 × 80 pixels.
• Keywords and Skills. Include all your resume keywords and skills in your profile, so your profile will be found.
• Build Your Network. Connect with other members and build your network. The more connections you have, the more opportunities you have, with one caveat, “Connect to people you know and trust or have a business relationship with, no need to go crazy and connect with everyone.”
• Get Recommendations. Recommendations from people you have worked with carry a lot of weight.
• Search Jobs. Use the job search section to find job listings.
• Use Answers. The Answers section of LinkedIn is a good way to increase your visibility. Respond to questions, and ask a question if you need information or assistance.
• Stay Connected. Use LinkedIn Mobile (m.linkedin.com) to view profiles, invite new connections, and access to LinkedIn Answers from your phone.
But No More Than 150 Ties!But No More Than 150 Ties!
It is important to note here a factor called Dunbar’s number. That is, there is some natural upper limit to the size
of network you can effectively maintain, even with online tools like Facebook and LinkedIn. The existence of
an upper boundary makes sense if you think about it—each contact you add to your network will likely require
some amount of time to sustain. In 1993, Oxford anthropologist Robin Dunbar theorized that “this limit is a direct
function of relative neocortex size [your brain’s center of higher brain functions], and that this in turn limits group
size…the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a
stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained (Bialik, 2007).” On the periphery, the number also includes
past colleagues such as high school friends with whom a person would want to get reacquainted if they met again.
Figure 9.9
Mark Zuckerberg, cofounder of Facebook, helped to bring social networking to 90 million users.
Joe Goldberg – Zuckerberg2 – CC BY-SA 2.0.
Making Invisible Work VisibleMaking Invisible Work Visible
In 2002, organizations researchers Rob Cross, Steve Borghatti, and Andrew Parker published the results of their
study of the social networking characteristics of 23 Fortune 500 firms (Cross, et. al., 2002). These researchers
were concerned that traditional analysis of organizational structure might miss the true way that critical work was
being done in modern firms—that is, they theorized that social networks, and not the structure presented on the
organization chart, might be a better indicator of the flow of knowledge, information, and other vital strategic
resources in the organization. One goal of their research was to better define scenarios where conducting a social
network analysis would likely yield sufficient benefit to justify the investment of time and energy on the part of
the organization.
Cross and colleagues found that SNA was particularly valuable as a diagnostic tool for managers attempting
to promote collaboration and knowledge sharing in important networks. Specifically, they found SNA uniquely
effective in:
• Supporting critical junctures in networks that cross functional, hierarchical, or geographic boundaries.
Connect and DevelopConnect and Develop
Consumer product giant Procter & Gamble (P&G) pioneered the idea of connect and develop, which refers to
developing new products and services through a vast social network spanning parts of P&G and many other
external organizations. Like many companies, P&G historically relied on internal capabilities and those of a
network of trusted suppliers to invent, develop, and deliver new products and services to the market. It did not
actively seek to connect with potential external partners. Similarly, the P&G products, technologies and know-
how it developed were used almost solely for the manufacture and sale of P&G’s core products. Beyond this,
P&G seldom licensed them to other companies.
However, around 2003 P&G woke up to the fact that, in the areas in which its does business, there are millions
of scientists, engineers, and other companies globally. Why not collaborate with them? P&G now embraces open
innovation, and it calls this approach “Connect + Develop.” It even has a Web site with Connect + Develop as its
address (http://www.pgconnectdevelop.com). This open innovation network at P&G works both ways—inbound
and outbound—and encompasses everything from trademarks to packaging, marketing models to engineering,
and business services to design.
On the inbound side, P&G is aggressively looking for solutions for its needs, but also will consider any
innovation—packaging, design, marketing models, research methods, engineering, and technology—that would
improve its products and services. On the outbound side, P&G has a number of assets available for license:
trademarks, technologies, engineering solutions, business services, market research methods and models, and
more.
As of 2005, P&G’s Connect + Develop strategy had already resulted in more than 1,000 active agreements. Types
of innovations vary widely, as do the sources and business models. P&G is interested in all types of high-quality,
on-strategy business partners, from individual inventors or entrepreneurs to smaller companies and those listed
in the FORTUNE 500—even competitors. Inbound or out, know-how or new products, examples of success are
as diverse as P&G’s product categories. Some of these stories are shown in “P&G Connect + Develop Success
Stories.”
P&G Connect + Develop Success StoriesP&G Connect + Develop Success Stories
Bringing Technology Into P&G
Olay Regenerist
How a small French company became part of P&G Beauty’s $2 billion brand
A few years ago, the folks in P&G’s skin care organization were looking both internally and externally for antiwrinkle technology options for next-generation Olay products. At a technical conference in Europe, P&G first learned of a new peptide technology that wound up being a key component used in the blockbuster product, Olay Regenerist.
The technology was developed by a small cosmetics company in France. They not only developed the
Taking Technology Out of P&G
Calsura
Not all calcium is created equal.
When P&G was in the juice business, it discovered Calsura, a more absorbable calcium that helps build stronger bones faster, and keeps them stronger for life. The addition of Calsura calcium makes any food or drink a great source of the daily calcium needed for building stronger bones faster in kids, and keeping bones stronger throughout adulthood; Calsura is proven to be 30% more absorbable than regular calcium. Today, P&G licenses the Calsura technology to several companies.
University Collaboration
Collaborating with a university in a new way
P&G has partnered with the prestigious design school at the University of Cincinnati to develop products specifically for consumers over age 50. Using design labs, university students and P&G researchers collaborate to study the unique needs of the over-50 consumer. The goal is to develop and commercialize products that are designed for this consumer bracket.
Adapted from http://www.pg.com (retrieved June 4, 2008).
The Innovation NetworkThe Innovation Network
Strategy consultant McKinsey & Company points to recent academic research that finds differences in individual
creativity and intelligence matter far less for organizational innovation than connections and networks. That is,
networked employees can realize their innovations and make them catch on more quickly than nonnetworked
employees can (Fleming & Marx, 2006).
On the basis of what was found by Cross and colleagues across many large firms, within P&G in particular, and in
their own research, McKinsey has observed four important steps in the innovation network process.1 These four
critical steps in designing, implementing, and managing an innovation network are summarized in the following
figure.
Adapted from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com (retrieved June 4, 2008).
The first step, connect, involves the identification of key people in the organization with an innovation mind-set.
Such individuals are not wed to the status quo and are comfortable with change and uncertainty. It is important to
involve individuals with different backgrounds and approaches to innovation. For instance, some individuals are
great at generating ideas while others may be better at researching and validating them. This group of individuals
would then be defined as a network. The second step, set boundaries and engage, is where the network’s goals
and objectives are defined. It is important to make it clear how the network’s goals and objectives will contribute
to the organization’s goals and larger strategy, mission, and vision. Time frames and desired target outcomes are
stated as well.
In the third step, support and govern, the leadership structure for the network is decided on, along with any
protocols for meeting, sharing ideas, and decision making. With these process guidelines in place, the network
members can then make sure that they have identified the resources necessary to conduct their work. This includes
gaining sponsorship and buy-in from other parts of the organization, including upper management. Finally, the
fourth step involves managing and tracking. This last step covers a spectrum of needs, ranging from how network
members will be recognized and rewarded for their contributions, the agreement about process-tracking criteria,
and some guidelines on how new members join the network and others leave.
by identifying the appropriate mix and balance of employees. Innovation networks, like cross-functional teams,
require different skills and attitudes. In McKinsey’s experience, they include combinations of several archetypes.
Which one are you?
• Idea generators prefer to come up with ideas, believe that asking the right questions is more important than
having the right answers, and are willing to take risks on high-profile experiments.
• Researchers mine data to find patterns, which they use as a source of new ideas. They are the most likely
members of the network to seek consumer insights and to regard such insights as a primary input.
• Experts value proficiency in a single domain and relish opportunities to get things done.
• Producers orchestrate the activities of the network. Others come to them for new ideas or to get things
done. They are also the most likely members of the network to be making connections across teams and
groups.
Key Takeaway
This section showed how social networks create value. We started by introducing the social network theory concepts of reciprocity, exchange, and similarity. We then discussed using social networks as a vehicle for advancing your own career. The section concluded by explaining how social networks create value in and across organizations, with specific examples of making invisible work visible, Procter & Gamble’s Connect + Develop, and McKinsey’s “innovation network” concept.
Exercises
1. What does the social network concept of reciprocity mean, and what are its pros and cons?
2. What does the social network concept of exchange mean, and what are its pros and cons?
3. What does the social network concept of similarity mean, and what are its pros and cons?
4. How do social networks create value in a career management setting?
5. How do social networks create value in an organizational setting?
6. What are some ways that an organization can manage the social network to be more innovative?
1How companies approach innovation: A McKinsey global survey. (2007). McKinsey Quarterly.
Bialik, C. (2007, November 16). Sorry, you may have gone over your limit of network friends. Wall Street Journal.
Cox, C. (2008, October 7). Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http://blog.styleapple.com/styleapple-creative-
Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible. California Management Review, 44(2),
25–46.
Fleming, L., & Marx, M. (2006). Managing creativity in small worlds. California Management Review, 48(4),
6–27.
Goleman. D. (2006). Social intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2004). Social networks and organizations. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.
Learning Objectives
2. Developing a toolkit for managing the ethical issues.
3. Suggest why ignoring social networks may be unethical.
What Is Social Network Analysis?What Is Social Network Analysis?
Before delving into the ethical issues, let’s revisit social network analysis. Social networking is built on the
idea that there is a determinable structure to how people know each other, whether directly or indirectly.
Notions such as six degrees of separation—that everyone on earth is separated from everyone else by no
more than six intermediate personal relationships—have popularized the idea that people can be (however
unknowingly) connected through common associates. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, social
network analysis (SNA) is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups,
organizations, computers, Web sites, and other information/knowledge processing entities. This can be done with
paper and pencil surveys, software programs, and even comparing e-mail and phone logs, but the desired output
is essentially the same. Social networks are the invisible organization. That is, they are the actual organization
behind the printed organization chart.
400
Figure 9.11
Ethics are not simply a matter of the law; they are a prescription for doing good.
Orietta.sberla – Ethics049webIV – CC BY-SA 3.0.
Ethical ImplicationsEthical Implications
Application of the principles behind P-O-L-C should help managers lead their organizations to bigger and better
things, and social networks are a key ingredient in the “organizing” component (Borgatti & Molina, 2003; Borgatti
& Molina, 2005). So, what harm can there be if a manager uses SNA to uncover the invisible structure in their
organization? Three top ethical concerns are (1) violation of privacy, (2) psychological harm, and (3) harm to
individual standing. Let’s look at each of these three ethical concerns in turn.
Violation of PrivacyViolation of Privacy
Managers typically use surveys (sometimes with the aid of consultants) to capture and map the structure of a
social network. If each employee has consented to the survey, then the manager is on much more solid ground.
Care must be taken, however, that participants are aware of the survey’s objectives and applications. Recall that
a network diagram reflects a pattern or relationship among people, such that survey participants will actually be
reporting, by definition, on what other individuals are doing. For instance, if a communication network in your
organization is being mapped, you might be asked who you initiate communication with and who initiates it with
you. You might also be asked for some indication of communication frequency. So, even if you agreed to complete
the survey, the other people that you identify as part of your network may have not.
Surveys are not the only basis for mapping social networks. Indeed, think about the network that might be
reflected by the contacts on your cell phone or e-mail lists. Given technology today this data could be readily
converted into a social network map showing who corresponded with whom and the length of such
correspondence. Moreover, with content coding software, even the content of the e-mails could be coded. This
9.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WITH SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS • 401
know that they are actually being mapped!
In both the survey-based and electronic mapping approaches, you might keep the identities of individuals
confidential, thereby protecting their privacy. However, it may be possible to guess the names of individuals by
virtue of their location in the network. For example, if a certain type of information can only originate with one
part of an organization, it might be pretty obvious to inside observers how such information flowed internally
and externally. Similarly, “organizations are typically quite small, so that even a small number of attributes can
uniquely identify individuals (Borghatti & Molina, 2005).” Second, demographic information on each person is
often available in the human resources database or is common knowledge because everyone knows everyone else.
Even if the outcome of such informal information flows is positive, the actual communication may be prohibited
internally by organizational rules and procedures. For example, you are likely familiar with the way Post-its were
developed at 3M through internal entrepreneurial actions—at the time, however, some of those actions were not an
explicit part of 3M’s rules and procedures (though, fortunately for 3M, its “bootlegging policy” gave the inventors
an opportunity to explore market options for the adhesive that did not stick).1
Harm to Individual StandingHarm to Individual Standing
The two remaining ethical issues are somewhat related. As you can imagine from the previous examples,
violation of privacy might lead to unforeseen, and possibly unwarranted, disciplinary action. This would harm an
individual’s standing. For instance, if a social network map revealed that one individual or an entire department is
the bottleneck for information flowing from one part of the organization to another, action might be taken against
that individual or members of the department. It may truly be the case that this person or department is a roadblock
to progress; but it may just as likely be the case that managers on one side or the other (in terms of social network)
of the apparent bottleneck are not very good at delegating or eliciting information. Similarly, the organization may
just be trying to run too much through one particular individual in the network. What one views as an indication
of individual incompetency may, in fact, be a need for training or the addition of staff to move the information
more effectively.
The possible harm to individual standing should be noted if 3M had used a social network map to understand
the roots of its Post-it homerun and had internal policies prohibiting the use of time and money on nonapproved
projects. If a network survey revealed that 3M’s breakthrough was caused by rogue employees—that is,
employees who were not following the rules about new product development and so on—the individual credited
with that innovation might have been reprimanded or fired. This, of course, was not the case in 3M, but you
can imagine how organizational policies meant to foster internal efficiencies might prohibit an individual from
contravening them, regardless of the benefits of the eventual outcome.
Finally, the purpose of the network analysis may be to identify areas of the firm that just aren’t critical to its
mission, vision, and strategy. As social network researchers Steve Borgatti and Jose-Luis Molina note, “This
introduces dangers for the respondents because management may make job or personnel changes (e.g., firing non-
central workers) based on the network analysis. In fact, in the case of a consulting engagement, this may be the
explicit purpose of the research, at least from the point of view of management (Borghatti & Molina, 2005).”
Obviously, one of the roles of management is to determine the efficient and effective allocation of resources. SNA
can be a useful tool in this determination, but the purpose of the analysis should be made clear to participants from
the outset.
Psychological HarmPsychological Harm
This third area can be subtle, but it is very important as well. Psychological harm might arise when information
is used in a way that manipulates the behavior of individuals. For instance, managers are likely to develop
maps of social networks because their managers believe that there might be better ways of planning, organizing,
leading, and controlling. As Borgatti and Molina point out, however, SNA in this context is explicitly part of a
transformation process in which the group is shown data about itself, such as network diagrams, and asked to react
to it. Experience suggests that this technique serves as a powerful catalyst for change. “It is dangerous, however,
because of the powerful emotions it engenders in a group setting and this can put the researcher in the position of
practicing therapy without a license (Borghatti & Molina, 2005).”
A Framework for Managing the Ethical Issues of SNAA Framework for Managing the Ethical Issues of SNA
Now that you understand some of the ethical issues arising from SNA you are in a better position to anticipate
and manage them. Of course, we should refresh your memory on the general ethical decision-making guidelines
before delving into more SNA-specific ones. In brief, the following are the six steps (Hartman & DesJardins,
2008):
1. Assess the situation. What are you being asked to do? Is it illegal? Is it unethical? Who might be harmed?
2. Identify the stakeholders and consider the situation from their point of view. For example, consider the
point of view of the company’s employees, top management, stockholders, customers, suppliers, and
community.
3.
Consider the alternatives you have available to you and how they affect the stakeholders. These include:
a. consequences
c. implications for personal integrity and character
4. Consider the effects of your actions. How does the action make you feel about yourself? How would you
feel if your actions were reported tomorrow in the Wall Street Journal (or your daily newspaper)? How
would you explain your actions to your mother or to your 10-year-old child?
5. Make a decision. This might involve going to your boss or to a neutral third party (such as an
ombudsman or ethics committee). Know your values and your limits. If the company does nothing to rectify
the situation, do you want to continue working for the company?
6. Monitor outcomes. Track what actually happens and compare it to what you expected.
Beyond these general guidelines, there are three specific ways that you might manage SNA related ethical
concerns. These are (1) full disclosure, (2) anonymization and opt-out options, and (3) participant training and
feedback. Let’s look at each of these in turn.
First, you might consider some way of applying the notion of informed consent to the participants of an exercise
that maps the organization’s social networks. This means that each person included in the mapping process would
be told the purpose of the exercise, along with what the outcome would look like. We provide an example
disclosure form where they would also be apprised of the possible risks. For instance, one SNA informed consent
form includes the following paragraph:
Risks and costs Since management will see the results of this study, there is a chance that someone in management could
consider your set of communication contacts to be inappropriate for someone in your position, and could think less of you.
Please note, however, that the researchers have obtained a signed agreement from management stipulating that the data will be
used for improving communication in the company and will not be used in an evaluative way (Borghatti & Molina, 2005).
Second, managers can consider different ways of making the process anonymous or giving individuals the option
to opt-out of the mapping process. For example, department-level network information could be presented instead
of individual-level information. Where it is impossible to protect the privacy wishes of one individual, then an
op-out option is the only way to protect their privacy, though this will clearly affect the accuracy of the SNA. If
an individual opts out, this should mean that their name appears nowhere on the social network diagram (even if
they are identified by another individual as being part of their social network). For instance, in the sample map,
you can see that the map would be very disjointed if John and Holly opted out of the SNA.
Figure 9.12 A Social Network Survey Participant Disclosure Form
Reproduced with permission of Borghatti, S. P., & Molina, J.-L. (2005). Toward ethical guidelines for
network research in organizations. Social Networks, 27, 107–117.
Finally, managers can consider the application of SNA in conjunction with a larger employee development
program where participants are taught about social network analysis and then their results are debriefed with
them one on one. Where there are still concerns for privacy, individuals can map their own social networks and
then act on them personally. It is management’s responsibility to steward the organization’s resources in a way
that is consistent with the mission and vision. In that sense, SNA is a valuable tool for understanding how the
organization’s work actually gets done. However, because it is such a powerful and revealing tool, managers must
be thoughtful in its ethical application.
The Ethical Argument in Favor of Managing Social NetworksThe Ethical Argument in Favor of Managing Social Networks
We close this section with some discussion of why it might actually be unethical to neglect the organization’s
social network. Be sensitive to the ethical issues surrounding the management of social networks, but that does
not mean leaving social network relationships to chance. For instance, if you know that your department would
be more productive if person A and person B were connected, as a manager wouldn’t you want to make that
connection happen? In many firms, individuals are paid based on performance, so this connection might not only
increase the department’s performance, but its personal incomes as well.
The broader issue is that social networks exist and that the social capital they provide is an important and powerful
vehicle for getting work done. That means that the ethical manager should not neglect them. Wayne Baker, author
of Achieving success through Social Capital, puts it this way:
“The ethics of social capital [i.e., social network relationships] requires that we all recognize our moral duty to consciously
manage relationships. No one can evade this duty—not managing relationships is managing them. The only choice is how to
manage networks of relationships. To be an effective networker, we can’t directly pursue the benefits of networks, or focus on
what we can get from our networks. In practice, using social capital means putting our networks into action and service for
others. The great paradox is that by contributing to others, you are helped in return, often far in excess of what anyone would
expect or predict (Baker, 2000).”
Key Takeaway
Now that you have a better understanding of social networks and SNA you need to understand some of the ethical implications of the application of such knowledge. You learned that SNA gives rise to concerns about privacy, harm to individual standing, and psychological harm. You were reminded that the general ethical decision-making framework applies to your use of SNA, but you also learned some specific approaches to managing SNA-related ethical issues. Finally, you were presented with arguments about why neglect of an organization’s social network also can have negative ethical implications.
Exercises
1. What is social network analysis?
2. Why should managers be concerned about the ethical implications of social network analysis?
3. What might be some of the unforeseen consequences of SNA for you as an employee?
4. How would the privacy of employees be affected even if they are not directly surveyed as part of the SNA?
5. What steps can you take to improve the ethical bases for conducting SNA?
6. Why might it be unethical for managers to neglect the organization’s social networks?
1To foster creativity, 3M encourages technical staff members to spend up to 15% of their time on projects of their
own choosing. Also known as the “bootlegging” policy, the 15% rule has been the catalyst for some of 3M’s most
famous products, such as Scotch Tape and—of course—Post-it notes. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from source.
Baker, W. (2000). Achieving success through social capital. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borgatti, S. P., & Molina, J.-L. (2003). Ethical and strategic issues in organizational network analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 337–349.
Borghatti, S. P., & Molina, J.-L. (2005) Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations. Social
Networks, 27, 107–117.
responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.6 Personal, Operational, and Strategic Networks
Learning Objectives
1. See networks as something you can, and need to, manage.
2. Know about different network forms—personal, operational, and strategic.
3. Understand some of the actions you need to take to move your network forward.
This section draws heavily on recent research by Herminia Ibarra, Brian Uzzi, and others, to help you understand
the different forms that social networks can take. Ibarra and Uzzi have been studying the social networks and
social networking tactics and strategies of managers for more than 20 years and are considered thought-leaders
in the field (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007; Ibarra, 2006). Their most recent work suggests that strong, useful networks
don’t just happen at the watercooler. They have to be carefully constructed.
What separates successful managers from the rest of the pack? Networking: creating a fabric of personal contacts
to provide the support, feedback, and resources needed to get things done. Yet many managers avoid networking.
Some think they don’t have time for it. Others disdain it as manipulative. To succeed as a manager, Ibarra
recommends building three types of networks:
• Personal—kindred spirits outside your organization who can help you with personal advancement.
• Operational—people you need to accomplish your assigned, routine tasks.
• Strategic—people outside your control who will enable you to reach key organizational objectives.
These networks, their purpose, and how to build network membership, are summarized in “Personal, Operational,
and Strategic Networks.” Most importantly, Ibarra’s work suggests that leaders need to possess all three types of
networks, and not just one or two. Let’s take a look at each one of these networks.
Table 9.1 Personal, Operational, and Strategic Networks
408
The purpose of this network is to… If you want to find network members, try…
Personal network
participating in alumni groups, clubs, professional associations, and personal interest communities.
Operational network
get your work done, and get it done efficiently. identifying individuals who can block or support a project.
Strategic network
figure out future priorities and challenges; get stakeholder support for them.
identifying lateral and vertical relationships with other functional and business unit managers—people outside your immediate control—who can help you determine how your role and contribution fit into the overall picture.
Personal NetworksPersonal Networks
“Personal networks are largely external, made up of discretionary links to people outside the workplace with whom we
have something in common. As a result, what makes a personal network powerful is its referral potential. According to the
famous six degrees of separation principle, our personal contacts are valuable to the extent that they help us reach, in as few
connections as possible, the far-off person who has the information we need (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007).”
Figure 9.13
Social networks can serve personal, operational, or strategic purposes.
Agência Brasil – A working dinner at the summit – CC BY 3.0.
9.6 PERSONAL, OPERATIONAL, AND STRATEGIC NETWORKS • 409
Personal networking engages kindred spirits from outside an organization in an individual’s efforts to learn and
find opportunities for personal advancement. Personal networks are one’s circle of casual acquaintances, typically
composed of people outside of the company you work for. Before you have a job in a particular company, many
of your network ties are personal, oriented toward current interests and future potential interests. Key contacts are
typically discretionary—that is, it is not always clear who is most relevant.
Most personal networks are highly clustered—that is, your friends are likely to be friends with one another as
well. And, if you made those friends by introducing yourself to them (as opposed to being introduced by a mutual
acquaintance), the chances are high that their experiences and perspectives echo your own. Ideas generated within
a personal network typically circulate among the same people with shared views. This creates the risk that a
potential winning idea can go unexploited if no one in the group has what it takes to bring that idea to fruition.
But what if someone within that cluster knows someone else who belongs to a whole different group? That
connection, formed by an information broker, can expose your idea to a new world, filled with fresh opportunities
for success. Diversity and breadth, that is, reaching out to contacts who can make referrals, makes the difference.
Through professional associations, alumni groups, clubs, and personal interest communities, managers gain new
perspectives that allow them to advance in their careers. This is what we mean by personal networking.
While personal networks are important, particularly to the extent that they provide you with valuable resources
and access to needed resources, the challenge is to convert them into network resources that also help with
operational and strategic needs. Too often, however, those individuals in the personal network just aren’t the right
types of ties to be beneficial operationally or strategically, which is why you need to look at broadening your
network to address operating and strategic needs.
Operational NetworksOperational Networks
“All managers need to build good working relationships with the people who can help them do their jobs. The number and
breadth of people involved can be impressive—such operational networks include not only direct reports and superiors but
also peers within an operational unit, other internal players with the power to block or support a project, and key outsiders such
as suppliers, distributors, and customers. The purpose of this type of networking is to ensure coordination and cooperation
among people who have to know and trust one another in order to accomplish their immediate tasks…Either you’re necessary
to the job and helping to get it done, or you’re not (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007).”
On the basis of a close study of 30 emerging leaders, Ibarra and Hunter found that operational networking was
geared toward doing one’s assigned tasks more effectively. It involves cultivating stronger relationships with
colleagues whose membership in the network is clear; their roles define them as stakeholders. The previous quote
provides you with a good working definition of operational network: “Either you’re necessary to the job and
helping get it done, or you’re not.” That is, anyone who satisfies this criterion should be considered part of your
operational network.
So, now you have two networking bases covered. At least you know how to identify the gaps in your personal and
operational network. Your personal network provides access to external resources and referrals; your operational
network helps you get the work done. Thus, most operational networking occurs within an organization, and ties
are determined in large part by routine, short-term demands. Relationships formed with outsiders, such as board
members, customers, and regulators, are directly task-related and tend to be bounded and constrained by demands
determined at a higher level. But as a manager moves into a leadership role, his or her network must reorient itself
externally and toward the future. This is the role played by strategic networking.
Strategic NetworksStrategic Networks
“Making a successful leadership transition requires a shift from the confines of a clearly defined operational network…It is
a challenge to make the leap from a lifetime of functional contributions and hands-on control to the ambiguous process of
building and working through networks. Leaders must accept that networking is one of the most important requirements of
their new leadership roles and continue to allocate enough time and effort to see it pay off (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007).”
Whereas an operational network is fairly narrowly focused, with the locus of contacts formed around specific
objectives, a strategic network necessarily involves lateral and vertical ties to stakeholders inside and outside of
the firm. As Ibarra and Hunter found in their research, strategic networking is the ability to marshal information,
support, and resources from one sector of a network to achieve results in another. Pushed to its logical limit, the
basis of this difference is that effective leaders are highly dependent on others to get things done. The irony here is
that the individuals in your network, who are the lifeline for building up the big picture, are also individuals who
are likely to be outside of your immediate control. While this may seem obvious, it is often difficult to transition
from a purely operational network to a strategic one, either due to simple time constraints (strategic networking
takes time, often without immediate or obvious benefits) or because of negative personal attitudes toward strategic
networking (for instance, “that’s too political and goes against my values”).
Making It HappenMaking It Happen
Networks create value, but networking takes real work. Beyond that obvious point, accept that networking is one
of the most important requirements of a leadership role. To overcome any qualms about it, identify a person you
respect who networks effectively and ethically. Observe how he or she uses networks to accomplish goals. You
probably will also have to reallocate your time. This means becoming a master at the art of delegation, to liberate
time you can then spend on cultivating networks.
Building a network obviously means that you need to establish connections. Create reasons for interacting with
people outside your function or organization; for instance, by taking advantage of social interests to set the stage
for addressing strategic concerns. Ibarra and Hunter found that personal networking will not help a manager
through the leadership transition unless he or she learns how to bring those connections to bear on organizational
strategy. In “Guy Kawasaki’s Guide to Networking through LinkedIn,” you are introduced to a number of network
growth strategies using that powerful Web-based tool.
Finally, remind yourself that networking requires you to apply the principle of reciprocity. That is, give and
take continually—though a useful mantra in networking is “give, give, give.” Don’t wait until you really need
something badly to ask for a favor from a network member. Instead, take every opportunity to give to—and
receive from—people in your networks, regardless of whether you need help.
Guy Kawasaki’s Guide to Networking Through LinkedInGuy Kawasaki’s Guide to Networking Through LinkedIn
LinkedIn (http://www.Linkedin.com) is the top business social networking site. With more than 30 million members by the end of 2008, its membership dwarfs that of the second-largest business networking site, Plaxo. LinkedIn is an online network of experienced professionals from around the world representing 150 industries (LinkedIn, 2008). Yet, it’s still a tool that is underutilized, so entrepreneur Guy Kawasaki compiled a list of ways to increase the value of LinkedIn (Guy Kawaski, 2008). Some of Kawasaki’s key points are summarized here that can help you develop the strategic side of your social network (though it will help you with job searches as well):
Increase your visibility. By adding connections, you increase the likelihood that people will see your profile first when they’re searching for someone to hire or do business with. In addition to appearing at the top of search results, people would much rather work with people who their friends know and trust.
Improve your connectability. Most new users put only their current company in their profile. By doing so, they severely limit their ability to connect with people. You should fill out your profile like it’s a resume, so include past companies, education, affiliations, and activities. You can also include a link to your profile as part of an e-mail signature. The added benefit is that the link enables people to see all your credentials.
Perform blind, “reverse,” and company reference checks. Use LinkedIn’s reference check tool to input a company name and the years the person worked at the company to search for references. Your search will find the people who worked at the company during the same time period. Since references provided by a candidate will generally be glowing, this is a good way to get more balanced data.
Make your interview go more smoothly. You can use LinkedIn to find the people that you’re meeting. Knowing that you went to the same school, play hockey, or share acquaintances is a lot better than an awkward silence after, “I’m doing fine, thank you.”
Gauge the health of a company. Perform an advanced search for company name and uncheck the “Current Companies Only” box. This will enable you to scrutinize the rate of turnover and whether key people are abandoning ship. Former employees usually give more candid opinions about a company’s prospects than someone who’s still on board.
Key Takeaway
In this section, you were introduced to a different slant on social networks—a slant that helps you manage your networks based on where you might be in an organization. Personal networks are important and tend to follow you everywhere. In this section, we stressed the access-to-information and referral benefits of personal networks. Operational networks are those that help you get your immediate work done, and if the key stakeholders in the work process aren’t already in your operational network, then you have some network rework in order. Finally, strategic networks are those that involved a much broader stakeholder group and typically involved individuals who are out of your direct control. One key takeaway from this section is that effective leaders are effective networkers, and you will need to figure out the style of networking that works for you as you move higher in an organization.
1. What characterizes a personal social network?
2. What benefits do members of a personal social network provide to each other?
3. What characterizes an operational social network?
4. What is a simple rule of thumb for determining if someone should be in your operational network?
5. What characterizes a strategic social network?
6. What two barriers interfere with the development of strategic networks?
Guy Kawaski, retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://blog.guykawasaki.com.
Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2007, January). How leaders build and use networks. Harvard Business Review, 40–47.
Ibarra, H. (2006). Career Change. In J. H. Greenhaus & G. A. Callanan (Eds.), The encyclopedia of career
development, 7782. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.
LinkedIn, retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=company_info&trk=hb_ft_abtli.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand what is involved in social network analysis.
2. Be able to analyze your own social network.
3. Be able to identify the gaps in your network and develop a plan to fill those gaps.
As you have already learned, the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups,
organizations, computers, Web sites, and other information/knowledge processing entities is called social network
analysis. Social network analysis is not the same thing as networking, where networking is the activities you
might engage in to build your social network. In this section, you will learn the basics of mapping your own social
network. It will give you a sense of the size of your network, along with some other useful characteristics to work
with such as density.
You can map your social network to understand its structure.
Kat Masback – BC-4 World Primary Network – CC BY-SA 2.0.
Step One: What Purpose Should the Network Serve?Step One: What Purpose Should the Network Serve?
There are a number of possible purposes for a social network.1 As a manager, you are probably most concerned
with these six (Cross, et. al., 2002). First, a communication network is the informal structure of an organization
as represented in ongoing patterns of interaction, either in general or with respect to a given issue. Second, an
information network shows who goes to whom for advice on work-related matters. Third, a problem-solving
network indicates who goes to whom to engage in dialogue that helps people solve problems at work. Fourth, a
knowledge network captures who is aware of whose knowledge and skills, and an access network (fifth) shows
who has access to whose knowledge and expertise. The sixth and final purpose is a career network, which
reflects those individuals in your network who are likely to be helpful in your search for a new job or quest for
a promotion. Given that you are reading a principles of management book, a career network may be the most
interesting to you.
Step Two: Who Are Your Contacts and What Is Your Relationship with Them?Step Two: Who Are Your Contacts and What Is Your Relationship with Them?
Let’s assume that we are mapping your career network. A career network is simply those individuals who might
be instrumental in helping you secure a new job or promotion. You can simply draft out a list of names, using
9.7 MAPPING AND YOUR OWN SOCIAL NETWORK • 415
names or just initials, but the goal is to develop a fairly complete list. The list can be as long or as short as you
want to make it, though keep in mind that there is probably a limit to how effectively you can maintain a large
network where you expect each relationship to be strong and meaningful, or at least one where the contact would
probably respond to your request for assistance. Managers with 15 years of experience might list 30 to 50 names,
while a college student might list 15 to 25 names. These are just averages, though, and individuals can be much
higher or lower, depending on their situation.
The following three questions are sometimes useful in drafting out this initial list.
1. If you look back over the last two to three years, who are the people with whom you have discussed
important school or work matters? This may have been for bouncing around ideas for important projects,
getting support or cooperation for your initiatives, evaluating opportunities, or any other matters of
importance to you.
2. What people have been most helpful and useful in accomplishing your job, in a work, school, or
volunteer setting? Consider people who have provided leads, made introductions, offered advice in your
decision making, or provided resources.
3. Who has directly influenced your career? List those people who have contributed most significantly to
your professional development and career advancement during the past two to three years.
Now that you have your list, briefly categorize the names based on (1) the strength of your relationship (very
close, close, not very close, distant) and (2) who they are and where they come from. For this second facet, you
might want to consider the following:
Total no. of ties _______ No. Ties % of Total
1. Your senior (higher up in your or another organization) _____ _____
2. Your peer (at your level in your or another organization) _____ _____
3. Your junior (below you in your or another organization) _____ _____
4. From a different functional or product area _____ _____
5. From a different business unit or office in your firm _____ _____
6. From a different firm _____ _____
7. The same gender as you are _____ _____
8. Members of the same racial or ethnic group as you are _____ _____
9. The same nationality as you are _____ _____
You will come back to this information after the next step, but you already have a better picture of your network
just after this second step. For instance, you know how many people are in this network, and the relative presence
of different types of network members.
Step Three: Who Knows Whom? Computing Network DensityStep Three: Who Knows Whom? Computing Network Density
Transfer your list of names to a grid like the one shown in the Sample Network Grid. Be sure to note your
relationship with them, in terms ranging from very close to distant. To complete the grid you place a check in the
box where one individual knows another. For instance, in this exhibit, Mary knows Zachary, Wesley, and Gerry.
Figure 9.15 Sample Network Grid
Computing Network DensityComputing Network Density
Once you have finished check-marking who knows whom, compute the density of your network using the
following:
a. Total number of people in your network
To follow our example, N = 10 (i.e., there are 10 names) N = __10_
b. Maximum Density (i.e., if everyone in your network knew each other). Our maximum density is (10 × 9) ÷ 2 = 45
[N × (N – 1)] ÷ 2 = M M = __45_
c. Total number of checkmarks on your network grid (i.e., the number of relationships among people in your network).
In our example, C = 19. C = __19_
d. Density of Your Network. Our D = 19 ÷ 45 = .42
C ÷ M = D D = __.42_
In our example, if our calculations are correct, the density of this network is .42. If each person in this network
knew every other person, then the density would be 1.0; if no one knew one another, outside of the person whose
network this was, then the density would be 0.0. In our example, the network density is close to the middle, which
means that about fewer than half the people have common network ties, while a little more than half have unique
relationships. You might also want to run this calculation for a subset of the ties based on whether they are very
9.7 MAPPING AND YOUR OWN SOCIAL NETWORK • 417
(N = no. very close ties, for instance).
What Is a Good Number?What Is a Good Number?
There is little research to tell us exactly how big (or small) or how dense (or sparse) the ideal network should be,
although there are some facts to consider. Remember Dunbar’s number from earlier in the chapter? Some studies
have suggested an upper limit of 150 network ties, but, again, that is a pretty big number if you also characterize
those ties as “very close.” It is perhaps more reasonable if a few are very close and the rest are spread out in the
“close” to “distant” categories. If you have a network of 15 to 20 people whose names come to mind quickly, that
is probably a useful size, particularly if your network density is around the middle. Remember, you just set up a
network where you were sort of the center point, and each member of your network, even if he/she is peripheral
to yours, is the center of his/her own network.
A good number for density is between .40 and .60—that is, some people know one another, and some do not.
The advantage of having people in your network who know one another is that they are likely to communicate
more frequently and provide a set of shared relationships that you can use to move information, ideas, and other
resources forward. Also, if any one of your network members, who knows no one else in the network, leaves the
network for some reason, you will no longer have access to the stuff he or she pr

Documents

Principles of Management - Ohio University